Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Gray
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:FPL is an essay and it doesn't seem like there is enough support for a NFOOTBALL or GNG keep. The longish digression seems to be more suited for a policy or guideline discussion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Bianca Gray[edit]
- Bianca Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: women's soccer shouldn't have the same guidelines as men. Bianca Gray played in the W-League which is one of the most professional women's leagues there are (which isn't fully pro) and is in a country consistently in the top 10 ranking, therefore of the highest level. --SuperJew (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment as a W-League fan, one who hopes to Watch the Matildas play Japan four hours from now as I write this, her name doesn't ring a bell, which is a bad sign. Relevant Google hits minus Wikipedia are also thin on the ground. I suggest SuperJew move this article to his userspace, to possibly be resuscitated if Bianca should rise in stature? I do appreciate his efforts to expand our articles on women's football, but Bianca doesn't (yet) make the cut. Eliyohub (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- On a general note here, I don't have a problem if we change our accepted notability for all players of all genders to be per WP:GNG or per amount of games played in a top-level or professional league, but the major problem IMO is that a male who plays 2 minutes in a dead rubber match in the Syrian Premier League can get an article, but a talented woman who played her entire career in the W-League can't. Personally I am more on the inclusionist side, so I'd prefer to be able to include both, and I don't think Wikipedia is hurt by having more articles about people, so long as the information is sourced and true. --SuperJew (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. Regardless of the feelings of editors above, it seems she played 2 games in the W-League some years ago. Whatever, people's feelings about notability criteria for female footballers, there is no escaping the fact that this is an individual whose impact on women's football in Australia has been minimal to say the least. More importantly, there is no indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Question Fenix down yet if she was a guy who played 7 games in the Syrian Premier League or a guy who I don't know how many games he's played because it doesn't say in any of the 2 references in a language I can read, then she is notable? --SuperJew (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- In both instances, she would be presumed notable, which is all NFOOTY does. It is quite clear across the whole of NSPORT that the guideline does not trump GNG. The presumption in the instance of the first player you mention would probably be correct given that far from simply playing 7 games, he appears not only to have had a 13 year career in two fully professional leagues, but also to have played at the highest level of club football in Asia. In the second instance, ignoring the fact that this is again a player with a decade long career in a fully professional league, the fact that you cannot read the language sources are written in is a problem for you to solve if you wish, it has no bearing on any individuals notability. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assessment. First of all, it doesn't feel at all clear that across the whole of NSPORT that the guideline does not trump GNG as many times I've seen articles being created and kept only on basis of NFOOTY. Secondly, no actually I'm not getting into discussions about individual players, as I brought them just as examples and if you search there are many more for sure. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's not an assessment, it's a statement of fact. The very first sentence of NSPORT says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. When an article is kept because it meets NFOOTY it is being kept because it is felt that a player has played at a high enough standard that it is likely that they have received sufficient independent coverage to satisfy GNG. The two players you noted above are excellent examples of this, where language barriers would prevent much of the enWiki community from providing local language sources to support GNG but where the length of the players' careers and the standard of the league in which they played can be used as proxies to determine a level of likely coverage. Where you find instances where you feel a player may pass NFOOTY but fail GNG, you are more than welcome to take such articles to AfD. In the case of this player though, what you need to be doing is providing sources that show GNG since, as I think we are both in agreement, that is the only guideline that really matters for notability. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please Fenix down, tell me about the notability of these players: Tony Ackerman, George Atkinson (Olympic footballer), Fred Bartholomew, Jim Bartley, Tommy Blenkinsopp, John Bollington, James Briscoe, Richard Brown (footballer) (that's an especially great one), and I can go on... but I'll spare us both --SuperJew (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- This isn't really the forum to discuss other players' notability, I've already reassured you that if there are articles on any player whom you feel fails GNG, you should feel free to take them to AfD, so I'm not going to comment on individual players here, particularly when the selection you present includes players who have had lengthy careers in the top division of English football, have managed senior international teams or have sources in the articles indicating non-routine coverage that could satisfy GNG on its own. Fenix down (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I did just that - knock yourself silly. And when you are deciding your thoughts just have a think if you'd vote the same if they were female footballers. --SuperJew (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is quite WP:POINTY and not a good use of anyone's time. Olympians, national team captains, players with several years of professional experience (have you ever seen female players with that sort of CV nominated for deletion??)... You're actually illustrating why having a presumption of notability is useful. These seriously need to be WP:SNOWCLOSEd. Not the right way to have this discussion. Macosal (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Macosal Every week articles about women are nominated for deletion because they are about women. Let's not be completely dismissive of serious systemic issues and frankly a bunch of sad BS found here with particular editors. If you don't "believe it", I invite you to follow the article alerts and participate in the AFDs to get a better understanding. Hey, look there's 20+ right now [1]. Try sometime engaging in a discussion with one or a few of the select WP:OWNers of WP:FPL to see if they can add a reference to "fully professional" as an indicator of notability or if it's just an arbitrary standard they like to enforce without justification. Yeah, here might not be the place for this discussion. I'm sure 5-10 different user and project talk pages would be much more effective for burying the core issue again. But it doesn't really matter. Now that we all agree WP:NFOOTY is mostly ineffective, always go for WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Whilst there may well be people who nominate articles for deletion based on gender (though I have never seen this although my exposure to biography based AfD is quite narrow), this absolutely not the case here. This article is at AfD because there is no substantial third party coverage of this player. Gender is irrelevant here. Can you show any sources that indicate GNG? Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fully professional is not arbitrary. There is certainly some correlation between professionalism and notability. How high a correlation I couldn't say, but certainly some of SuperJew's recent AfD nominations demonstrate the usefulness of having a presumption of notability one way or the other (e.g. where sources likely exist but are not online; to prevent time wasted on AfDs etc). I've said it before: I (unfortunately) don't think playing in the W-League correlates with notability. Many W-League players have little-no non-routine online coverage and so (such as this article) could never go beyond a stub. Ignoring that reality will hurt progress of gender equality on Wikipedia as much as it will help it. Macosal (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Where's the reference? But like I mentioned above. It really doesn't matter. Your comment about the W-League players coverage might've been accurate 10-20 years ago. I personally enjoyed watching many of them beat the #1 and #6-ranked FIFA teams last week. Hmlarson (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- As did I! I think the Matildas are one of if not the strongest of any Australian national sporting team. But look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Initiatives/W-League. Clearly a high proportion of W-League players have little-no non-routine independent coverage (to the extent that we would be silly to presume they are notable). Macosal (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- That list is a work in progress, obviously, and you can say the same for many men's players already included under WP:FPL that do not actually meet WP:GNG. This reinforces how much WP:FPL was created for men's leagues (not women's). Otherwise, the notability criteria would be modified for context to include more than two active top-division women's leagues ... like other sports notability guidelines. Hmlarson (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is though if you relax the rules governing WP:FPL to include more women's leagues then you have to do it across the board, you cannot address one form of bias by creating another. Any change to the guideline cannot be done simply to lower the bar for articles on women whilst maintaining the bar for articles on men. By changing the rule to say remove the notion of "fully pro" and include only "pro" leagues, whilst this would allow the creation of more article on female footballers who may pass GNG, it would also encourage the creation of an awful lot more articles on male footballers who certainly wouldn't pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Another reason for WP:WOSO, Fd. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Archives/2017/September#Task force vs WikiProject. Hmlarson (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is though if you relax the rules governing WP:FPL to include more women's leagues then you have to do it across the board, you cannot address one form of bias by creating another. Any change to the guideline cannot be done simply to lower the bar for articles on women whilst maintaining the bar for articles on men. By changing the rule to say remove the notion of "fully pro" and include only "pro" leagues, whilst this would allow the creation of more article on female footballers who may pass GNG, it would also encourage the creation of an awful lot more articles on male footballers who certainly wouldn't pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- That list is a work in progress, obviously, and you can say the same for many men's players already included under WP:FPL that do not actually meet WP:GNG. This reinforces how much WP:FPL was created for men's leagues (not women's). Otherwise, the notability criteria would be modified for context to include more than two active top-division women's leagues ... like other sports notability guidelines. Hmlarson (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- As did I! I think the Matildas are one of if not the strongest of any Australian national sporting team. But look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Initiatives/W-League. Clearly a high proportion of W-League players have little-no non-routine independent coverage (to the extent that we would be silly to presume they are notable). Macosal (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Where's the reference? But like I mentioned above. It really doesn't matter. Your comment about the W-League players coverage might've been accurate 10-20 years ago. I personally enjoyed watching many of them beat the #1 and #6-ranked FIFA teams last week. Hmlarson (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fully professional is not arbitrary. There is certainly some correlation between professionalism and notability. How high a correlation I couldn't say, but certainly some of SuperJew's recent AfD nominations demonstrate the usefulness of having a presumption of notability one way or the other (e.g. where sources likely exist but are not online; to prevent time wasted on AfDs etc). I've said it before: I (unfortunately) don't think playing in the W-League correlates with notability. Many W-League players have little-no non-routine online coverage and so (such as this article) could never go beyond a stub. Ignoring that reality will hurt progress of gender equality on Wikipedia as much as it will help it. Macosal (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Whilst there may well be people who nominate articles for deletion based on gender (though I have never seen this although my exposure to biography based AfD is quite narrow), this absolutely not the case here. This article is at AfD because there is no substantial third party coverage of this player. Gender is irrelevant here. Can you show any sources that indicate GNG? Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Macosal Every week articles about women are nominated for deletion because they are about women. Let's not be completely dismissive of serious systemic issues and frankly a bunch of sad BS found here with particular editors. If you don't "believe it", I invite you to follow the article alerts and participate in the AFDs to get a better understanding. Hey, look there's 20+ right now [1]. Try sometime engaging in a discussion with one or a few of the select WP:OWNers of WP:FPL to see if they can add a reference to "fully professional" as an indicator of notability or if it's just an arbitrary standard they like to enforce without justification. Yeah, here might not be the place for this discussion. I'm sure 5-10 different user and project talk pages would be much more effective for burying the core issue again. But it doesn't really matter. Now that we all agree WP:NFOOTY is mostly ineffective, always go for WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is quite WP:POINTY and not a good use of anyone's time. Olympians, national team captains, players with several years of professional experience (have you ever seen female players with that sort of CV nominated for deletion??)... You're actually illustrating why having a presumption of notability is useful. These seriously need to be WP:SNOWCLOSEd. Not the right way to have this discussion. Macosal (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I did just that - knock yourself silly. And when you are deciding your thoughts just have a think if you'd vote the same if they were female footballers. --SuperJew (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- This isn't really the forum to discuss other players' notability, I've already reassured you that if there are articles on any player whom you feel fails GNG, you should feel free to take them to AfD, so I'm not going to comment on individual players here, particularly when the selection you present includes players who have had lengthy careers in the top division of English football, have managed senior international teams or have sources in the articles indicating non-routine coverage that could satisfy GNG on its own. Fenix down (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please Fenix down, tell me about the notability of these players: Tony Ackerman, George Atkinson (Olympic footballer), Fred Bartholomew, Jim Bartley, Tommy Blenkinsopp, John Bollington, James Briscoe, Richard Brown (footballer) (that's an especially great one), and I can go on... but I'll spare us both --SuperJew (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's not an assessment, it's a statement of fact. The very first sentence of NSPORT says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. When an article is kept because it meets NFOOTY it is being kept because it is felt that a player has played at a high enough standard that it is likely that they have received sufficient independent coverage to satisfy GNG. The two players you noted above are excellent examples of this, where language barriers would prevent much of the enWiki community from providing local language sources to support GNG but where the length of the players' careers and the standard of the league in which they played can be used as proxies to determine a level of likely coverage. Where you find instances where you feel a player may pass NFOOTY but fail GNG, you are more than welcome to take such articles to AfD. In the case of this player though, what you need to be doing is providing sources that show GNG since, as I think we are both in agreement, that is the only guideline that really matters for notability. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assessment. First of all, it doesn't feel at all clear that across the whole of NSPORT that the guideline does not trump GNG as many times I've seen articles being created and kept only on basis of NFOOTY. Secondly, no actually I'm not getting into discussions about individual players, as I brought them just as examples and if you search there are many more for sure. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- In both instances, she would be presumed notable, which is all NFOOTY does. It is quite clear across the whole of NSPORT that the guideline does not trump GNG. The presumption in the instance of the first player you mention would probably be correct given that far from simply playing 7 games, he appears not only to have had a 13 year career in two fully professional leagues, but also to have played at the highest level of club football in Asia. In the second instance, ignoring the fact that this is again a player with a decade long career in a fully professional league, the fact that you cannot read the language sources are written in is a problem for you to solve if you wish, it has no bearing on any individuals notability. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – fails WP:GNG. From a cursory Google I cannot find any sources which are non-routine, or from which an article beyond a stub could be created. Nor, it seems, can anyone else. Regardless of any debate about gender it's pretty well-established that no article should exist in such circumstances, an article cannot exist where there appear to be (as here) literally 0 non-routine sources available. Macosal (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. The comments above about articles on female players getting deleted ignore the fact that we also delete tons of articles on male footballers (well over 100 so far in 2017 alone). Number 57 09:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Like Macosal, I did a google search and came up empty. Even if WP:NFOOTBALL were met, I would give the presumption little weight. My personal standard is this - all WP:NSPORT gives is a presumption. The presumption should be given strong weight in two cases - non-English subjects (even stronger for non-Latin subjects) and older subjects (certainly pre-Internet/pre-1997ish, but I would think even something 5-10 years out). Here, we have neither. This is an English based subject, so it shouldn't be too hard to find articles on something like google. Additionally, this athlete completed in 2013, well within the most conservative window of within the five years. Show cause - until we see the sources, delete. RonSigPi (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.